[PATCH] RuntimeDyldMachO should handle RIP-relative relocations correctly, and the corresponding tests should have coverage for this

[Rafael Espíndola]

> As an aside, can you guys explain to me why MCJIT uses an OS-specific linker
> convention for doing JIT linking?  Wouldn't it be better for the LLVM JIT to
> have its own internal linking convention that is unrelated to ELF or MachO?
> It seems like this would be less error-prone than having RuntimeDyld try to
> reimplement the system's own relocation logic.  It also seems highly
> unorthodox for a JIT to masquerade as if you did an AOT compile and then ran
> the dynamic linker; it would be much easier to architect the JIT so that the
> information needed for linking is represented in an object-oriented way
> rather than a blob of bits that pretends to be an on-disk object file.

When MCJIT was being designed there was some discussion about creating
a MCJIT object format. I was not directly involved at the time, but
Daniel might remember the rationale for going with native object
formats.

One advantaged is that the MC side is a bit simpler. We have one
object format less to worry about (and test) and I think only windows
has two object file formats (there is ELF when using the JIT).

An interesting idea might be to plug the JIT at the ObjectWriter
interface. It would get a "parsed" representation of the required
fixups, external symbols, etc. I am not sure how much re factoring
would be needed to make this work.

A somewhat crazy idea on the other direction would be to move some
bits of lld to the llvm repo so that MCJIT would be given native
.dylib/.so/.dll files, which should be a lot easier to handle.

Cheers,
Rafael